Affirmative, But Not Affirming

Biden’s Supreme Court nominee is definitely going to be a black female.  If she’s even remotely qualified, that’d be an added bonus, I suppose.  However, despite the praise from the media, the leftists will not concede a fundamental point: choosing someone of any race or gender, solely based on said race or gender, is racism.  Let’s take a brief look at a related legal issue.

According to the Legal Information Institute, affirmative action is “[a] set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future” (Affirmative Action).  This was a big issue during the Civil Rights Era, as both the government and other entities, such as public universities, swung to some odd extremes to combat “racism”.  For example, take the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.  In this case, a qualified white man was twice refused admission to a medical school due to admissions allowing 16 minorities into each class.  (For more detailed information, read Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.)  Understandably, Bakke sued because he was unfairly discriminated against based on race.  However, the justices of the Supreme Court were greatly divided on the case.  Four justices said that race-based entry requirements were against the Civil Rights act, but why they did not all say that is confusing.  

Two cases of the same type were brought against the University of Michigan and its law school.  Gratz v. Bollinger, decided in 2003, ruled that the admissions department’s “policies were not sufficently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard” (Gratz v. Bollinger).  “Strict scrutiny” refers to a legislative and judicial practice which “[furthers] a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest” (Strict Scrutiny).  Race is one of the areas considered a “suspect classification” under this.  The same standards applied similarly to the 2013 case Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher v. University of Texas).

However, does affirmative action help minorities the way it purports?  Absolutely not.  “Students admitted based on their skin color, rather than their merit, may end up ‘mismatched’ with their school, which leads to low grades and high dropout rates” (How Affirmative Action at Colleges Hurts Minority Students).  While there are certainly qualified minorities that can study for nearly any field, this does not mean that there are enough qualified minorities to fill the quotas.  The same author states that merit-based and race-blind admissions systems work the best for all involved.   A 2012 piece in the Atlantic states the following: “The largest, most aggressive preferences are usually reserved for upper-middle-class minorities on many of whom they inflict significant academic harm, whereas more modest policies that could help working-class and poor people of all races are given short shrift” (The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action).  Certainly, the best thing for all students would be to place them where they would be most guaranteed to succeed, and to quit using them for political ends.

To this day, the Department of Labor website boasts the following: “For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans” (U.S. Department of Labor).  Sure thing, fed.  If a contractor were constructing a wall, for example, would the color of the workers or their qualifications for the job matter the most?  Any reasonable person would want the most qualified worker, and only a PhD or politician would care about race or “gender”.

I am not a sociologist or anything of the sort, but I’ve always assumed that people will naturally end up where they ought.  Anybody who disagrees seems to be rather Platonic, sorting humans as to whether they have a gold, silver, or bronze soul (Plato, Republic, 3.415).  This seems distasteful to us; why not affirmative action? 

To bring this article full circle, I feel both happy and sad about Biden’s prospective nominee.  Serving on the Supreme Court is an immense honor and privilege, regardless of ideology, and I am happy she gets to share that.  However, it seems as though her judicial and legal qualifications will take second place to her color.  If Biden sees this article (a chance so slim I can’t entertain it), I can only urge him to choose what is best for the country, not what is best for his political ideology, of that of those who handle him.